X32 Rack as S16?

[TomHoward]

A straightforward question - has anyone managed to use an X32 rack in place of an S16 stage box, so as a remote input box, including having the remote head amps working from the main X32 console?

 

Looking to invest in an X32 and S16 setup, but currently we have an SM Pro Audio uMix on pre-order as well, but just thinking - if we can use an X32 rack in place of the S16, we can lose the uMix and use the X32 rack alone for some setups..

 

Many thanks

Tom

[sam.spoons]

A post on here http://forum.behringer.com/forumdisplay.php?6-X32-Digital-Mixer-Family would probably get you the info you need.

[pstewart]

Try these instructions - they worked for us, though we tweaked slightly so we can leave the rack in place (a large lecture theatre), and add a desk for control for events when required.

[OneEng]

A straightforward question - has anyone managed to use an X32 rack in place of an S16 stage box, so as a remote input box, including having the remote head amps working from the main X32 console?

 

Looking to invest in an X32 and S16 setup, but currently we have an SM Pro Audio uMix on pre-order as well, but just thinking - if we can use an X32 rack in place of the S16, we can lose the uMix and use the X32 rack alone for some setups..

 

Many thanks

Tom

Tom, this is done frequently by many people. The advantage of this setup is that you have a ready backup mixer for 16 channels should your main mixer have a catastrophic failure, and it can also be used as a small rig setup all of its own.

 

As an aside, from what I have read about the features of the uMix, the X32 Rack is a much more powerful mixer with many many more features.

 

 

 

[mojo filters]

I'm pretty certain that the original X32 Rack wouldn't work as a simple S16, however a subsequent firmware upgrade has made it possible - hence best to make sure the firmware is up to date, if you hire one for example.

 

There is loads more info on the X32 mega thread at soundforums.net, if you can get past all the posts essentially asking "can you please make this mixer do the same those that cost over 10 x the price?" ;-)

[TomHoward]

I did have a post over there, which was essentially whether they could make the mute groups function like every other desk in existence, rather than un-muting an individually muted channel in their unique way - making it impossible to wipe out band/redundant channels as they would be un-muted by the group.

 

There is also a lot of conceptual misunderstanding of what a DCA is in that thread - "why can't I route the DCA audio" is a common topic.

 

However many thanks for the replies - I have also just realised this afternoon that an X32 rack would function as a 16-input firewire recording card as well, without having to take the larger X32 console out for recording jobs, so that's another piece of equipment it will take the place off as well (and we can release the value of)

 

Many thanks

Tom

[mojo filters]

I did have a post over there, which was essentially whether they could make the mute groups function like every other desk in existence, rather than un-muting an individually muted channel in their unique way - making it impossible to wipe out band/redundant channels as they would be un-muted by the group.

 

There is also a lot of conceptual misunderstanding of what a DCA is in that thread - "why can't I route the DCA audio" is a common topic.

 

{snip}

 

I think the DCA misunderstanding occurs in the analogue domain too, though to a much lesser extent. Users see a grouping function, then fail to appreciate how that particular function is physically achieved (in the analogue sense).

 

Yours is a reasonable query for the X32. As an experienced user of many digital desks, but a master of none of them - standardizing mute group behaviour would be helpful.

 

In my experience of digital desks, the different approaches to implementation of analogue work-flow is simply an occupational hazard (and not particularly difficult to get to grips with, in the greater scheme of things).

 

My personal take is that with the X32, Behringer have put previously prohibitively expensive tech within the reach of inexperienced users, some of whom then have a tendency to make unreasonable demands...

 

An illustrative yet extreme example is the number of folks on the SF.net thread asking for 96kH capability, or expanded channel count - beyond the ability of that product and the technology that allows it to be built down to such a low price point.

 

I think it's quite impressive how Behringer have built subsequent firmware updates that allow things like 4th order loudspeaker-oriented EQ functionality - which provides handy scope to repurpose outputs in the unfortunate eventuality that your amp/speaker processor fails mid-gig, affording users a means of applying an effective short term fix should such misfortune befall them.

[OneEng]

I am one of those who would never have been able to afford anything that had LCD scribble strips or matrix mixes (not that I knew what such a thing was to begin with, so I wouldn't have missed it in another mixer).

 

Now that I have the features though, I have found that there are absolutely uses for them that greatly enhance work flow, and generally just make my life better all the way around :)

 

Funny that people have difficulty with DCA's. It was one of the easiest things for me to get and use right off the bat. The matrix mixes were harder. I use them now for running multiple sets of mis-matched speakers so I can individually feed the signal to them and equalize the signal going to them. That would have been one mean trick to pull off with my old MixWiz ;)

 

As for the 96KHz, being an engineer, I find it difficult to believe that anyone could hear the difference between a 48K desk (having a frequency response up to 24Khz) and a 96K desk (having frequency output up to 48Khz) considering the frequency response of the microphones and speakers in the signal path (not to mention the few people in the world that can actually hear anything higher than 20Khz). The quality of the algorithms in the DSP far outweigh any tiny differences one might be able to detect between the two frequencies IMHO. Even the argument about latency is no longer relevant since the X32 has time and phase cohearent busses and processing to eliminate any dithering that would occur (not to mention the trivial overall I/O latency of ~1mSec).